the following pages have been extracted from the … refugia... · since adoption of the ccrf, the...

THE FOLLOWING PAGES HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE ASEAN-SEAFDEC REGIONAL GUIDELINES ON RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES IN

SOUTHEAST ASIA

SEAFDEC (2006). Supplementary Guidelines on Co-management using Group User Rights, Fishery Statistics, Indicators and Fisheries Refugia. Southeast Asian

Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand. 84 pp.

REGIONAL GUIDELINESON THE USE OF FISHERIES REFUGIA FOR CAPTURE

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

UNEP/GEF SOUTH CHINA SEAPROJECT

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTPROGRAMME

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTFACILITY

Part D

CONTENTS

Background D-5

ASEAN-SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines for ResponsibleFisheries in Southeast Asia D-6

Introduction D-7

Regional Fisheries D-9

Emerging Themes for Regional Fisheries Management D-10

Fisheries Refugia and Fisheries Management in the ASEAN Region D-10

Regional Common Understanding of Fisheries Refugia D-12

Fisheries Problems, Goals and Objectives, and Challenges D-13

Priority Fisheries Refugia Types: Spawning and Juvenile Refugia D-14

Establishing Fisheries Refugia D-16

Fisheries Refugia and Marine Protected Areas D-17

Complementary Initiatives in Regional Fisheries Management D-18

D-5REGIONAL GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF FISHERIES REFUGIA FOR CAPTURE FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

REGIONAL GUIDELINESON THE USE OF FISHERIES REFUGIA

FOR CAPTURE FISHERIES MANAGEMENTIN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Background

There are very few binding and non-binding international instruments addressingfisheries issues in Southeast Asia perhaps the most significant of which is the FAOCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, to which most Southeast Asian countriesare signatory and which provides guidance regarding the minimization of bycatch,the use of environmentally friendly fishing gear, and the creation of institutionalarrangements for fisheries management.

International concern for overexploitation of fisheries resources and environmentalproblems caused by fishing practices, resulted in the 1992 Declaration of Cancuncalling upon the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) todevelop an International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. At the same time,FAO had identified a need for a guiding mechanism for use in closing the gap betweengovernment resolutions at the international level and effective implementation at thenational level. In response, the Conference of the FAO adopted the 1995 Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). The CCRF is global in scope, consistentwith relevant fisheries related instruments, applicable to all fisheries (includingaquaculture) and voluntary in nature, being a non-binding international instrument. Itprovides principles and standards applicable to the conservation, management anddevelopment of all fisheries. These include:

• The conservation of aquatic ecosystems,• Sustainable utilisation,• The prevention of overfishing and excess fishing capacity,• The use of the best scientific knowledge,• The application of the precautionary approach,• The use of selective and environmentally friendly fishing gear and practices,• The maintenance of biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems,• The protection of critical habitats in marine ecosystems,• The strengthening of flag state control of fishing vessels, and• Cooperation at sub-regional, regional and global levels.

Since adoption of the CCRF, the FAO has prepared a series of technical guidelinesproviding direction for the implementation of the code at the regional and nationallevels. These guidelines cover specific areas of the substantive articles of the Code,including fisheries management, fishing operations, the precautionary approach, theecosystem approach to fisheries, sustainability indicators, and illegal, unreported andunregulated fishing. The CCRF also prescribes for the establishment of voluntaryinternational plans of action (IPOAs) to deal with specific fisheries issues.

D-6SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES ON CO-MANAGEMENT USING GROUP USER RIGHTS,FISHERY STATISTICS, INDICATORS AND FISHERIES REFUGIA

ASEAN-SEAFDEC Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia

Effective implementation of the CCRF in Southeast Asian fisheries may enablethe development of sustainable fisheries, although requires that sufficient considerationbe given to the unique fisheries and issues that exist within the region. This is especiallythe case for the multi-species coastal and small-scale fisheries that are of centralimportance to the livelihoods and food security of most coastal communities, and forwhich well designed management interventions have the greatest capacity to influencethe quality of life of coastal populations in the region.

In this connection, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center(SEAFDEC), in collaboration with the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN), has been promoting the regionalisation of the CCRF. A valuable outcomeof this process is a 4-set package of Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries inSoutheast Asia (RGRFSA), which is comprised of four publications: (1) ResponsibleFishing Operations; (2) Responsible Aquaculture; (3) Responsible FisheriesManagement; and (4) Responsible Post-harvest Practices and Trade. The objectivesof the RGRFSA are to:

1. Clarify the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(CCRF),

2. Identify and prioritise the required actions,3. Identify the issues that require special consideration in the regional context,4. Facilitate the formulation of regional policies to enable the implementation

of the CCRF in the member countries of the Association of SoutheastAsian Nations (ASEAN), and to

5. Facilitate the formulation and implementation by the ASEAN MemberCountries of national codes of practice for responsible fisheriesmanagement.

The SEAFDEC Member Countries are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia,Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Dueto the diverse range of fishery settings observed in these countries, the RegionalGuidelines are not intended to provide step-by-step guidance to countries in developingfisheries management, rather they have been prepared provide inspiration and policysupport to countries in their efforts to develop sustainable fisheries.

This package is currently being expanded by SEAFDEC to provide regionalguidelines for small-scale and rights-based fisheries, fisheries statistics, and use ofindicators in fisheries management. A valuable outcome of the on-going collaborationbetween the UNEP/GEF SCS Project and SEAFDEC is that following the SixthMeeting of the Regional Working for the Fisheries Component convened in Sabah,Malaysia, from 5th – 8th September 2005, SEAFDEC invited the RWG-F to prepareguidelines on the use of the fisheries refugia concept being developed by the fisheriescomponent for sustainable capture fisheries in the ASEAN region. These guidelineswill be published in conjunction with the new SEAFDEC guidelines.



Based on inputs from the RWG-F, the PCU has recently prepared draft guidelineson the use of the refugia concept (Annex 1). The draft guidelines prepared by SEAFDECon indicators and co-management were reviewed to provide insight into the style andappropriate content of these guidelines, however there is some flexibility in the contentthat may be included.

The Regional Scientific and Technical Committee is requested to:• Review, comment upon and endorse, the work of the RWG-F to date on

a Regional System of Fisheries Refugia;• Provide guidance regarding the future development of the system; and,• Advise on the optimum manner in which the South China Sea Project can

promote further development of the adoption of a system of fisheriesrefugia in the region.

Introduction

1. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) highlights theneed to explore the use of alternative and innovative management approaches in orderto achieve sustainable fisheries.

2. Alternative and innovative approaches to fisheries management, especiallythose focusing on fishery and ecosystem linkages, have recently received high-levelinternational recognition. During the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on ResponsibleFisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, participants approved the Reykjavik Declarationon Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. The Reykjavik Declaration statesthat in an effort to reinforce responsible and sustainable fisheries in the marineecosystems, “we will individually and collectively work on incorporating ecosystemconsiderations into that management to that aim”.

3. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg,South Africa, 2002, considered the Reykjavik Declaration in adopting a politicaldeclaration and plan of implementation in relation to capture fisheries. In the WSSDDeclaration, the Heads of State agreed to “develop and facilitate the use of diverseapproaches and tools, including the ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructivepractices…the integration of marine and coastal areas into key sectors”.

4. At the regional level, the ‘Plan of Action’ adopted at the ASEAN-SEAFDECConference on Sustainable Fisheries for Food Security in the New Millennium: “Fish forthe People”, organised from 19 to 24 November 2001 in Bangkok, Thailand, emphasisesthe importance of the use of alternative management to support fisheries management inthe ASEAN region.

5. The ASEAN-SEAFDEC “Plan of Action” is also supported by the ASEAN-SEAFDEC “Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia” whichindicate that alternative management approaches should be promoted to augment classicalfisheries management models within national management frameworks.


6. These Regional Guidelines on the Use of Fisheries Refugia for SustainableCapture Fisheries in Southeast Asia have been developed to assist ASEAN membercountries in the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(CCRF) as well as the Resolution and Plan of Action on Sustainable Fisheries forFood Security for the ASEAN Region.

7. The concept of fisheries refugia as promoted in these guidelines has beendeveloped by the Fisheries Component of the UNEP/GEF Project Entitled “ReversingEnvironmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand”(UNEP/GEF SCS Project) in collaboration with the Southeast Asian FisheriesDevelopment Center (SEAFDEC) for the development of a regional system of fisheriesrefugia.

8. These Guidelines build upon the Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheriesin Southeast Asia with emphasis on item 7.6.4 ADD. 1 on Responsible Fishing, whichstates that in terms of taking appropriate action to ensure that fishing gear, methodsand practices that are not consistent with responsible fishing are phased out andreplaced with more acceptable alternatives:

“(8) States should consider area or seasonal closure to protect critical stagesof life cycle of fisheries resources.”

The Guidelines also build upon item 7.6.9 of the Regional Guidelines on Wastes,Discards, and Ghost Fishing, which states that in terms of taking appropriate actionto minimise waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-targetspecies, both fish and non-fish species, and negative impacts on associated or dependentspecies, in particular endangered species:

“(2) States should strongly implement management measures such as closedareas and seasons in critical habitats (e.g. coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove areas,etc.) which are important for sustaining fish stocks.”

9. Importantly, these guidelines focus on encouraging ASEAN member countriesto embrace the use of fisheries refugia in fisheries management as a means of buildingthe resilience of fish populations to the effects of over-fishing, which is especiallyrelevant regionally in terms of food security.

Regional Fisheries

10. Fisheries make significant contributions to regional economies, particularlythose of countries bordering the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea. However,since the majority of fisheries are small-scale in nature, and land fish in a large numberof small decentralised landing places for distribution through complex marketingnetworks at the community level, estimates of the value of capture fisheries productionare largely underestimated and do not adequately value the small-scale fishing sector.



11. Most regional countries are in the top 20 capture fishery producing countriesin the world, with some experience annual increases in production of up to 5 percent.Pelagic fishes dominate landings by volume and value, as demersal fisheries havebeen largely over-exploited. However, it is well accepted that regional fisheries statisticsrarely reflect production information for small-scale coastal fisheries and do notadequately reflect the high level participation of coastal communities in fishing, or theimportance of artisanal and subsistence fishing to coastal communities.

12. Declining fish availability, coupled with over-capacity and the dependence ofthe small-scale sector on coastal fisheries for income generation has led to the adoptionof destructive fishing practices such as blast fishing to maintain short-term incomesand food production. Similarly, based on present consumption patterns and populationgrowth rates, pressure on coastal fisheries is steadily increasing. Despite nutritionalrequirements and current population growth rates, regional countries are generallynet exporters of fishery products. This trade pattern is continuing since the need togenerate foreign exchange to buy capital inputs for industrialisation generally continuesto be a higher priority than food security.

13. Fisheries trends suggest that production from capture fisheries will wane incoming years unless fishing effort (and related over-capacity) is reduced. The obviousproblem in the reduction of fishing capacity is that regional fisheries are mostly small-scale in nature with the majority of participants (and their families) highly dependenton fish catches for income, food and well-being.

14. Regional initiatives in the development of sustainable fisheries, including thedecentralisation of fisheries management, the use of rights-based approaches to small-scale fisheries management, and the improved use of statistics and indicators, willneed to consider alternative fisheries management tools. The example expounded inthese guidelines is based on the use of area-based or zoning approaches to fisheriesmanagement that aim at maintaining the habitats upon which fish stocks depend, aswell as minimising the effects of fishing on stocks of important species in areas andat times critical to their life-cycle.

Emerging Themes for Regional Fisheries Management

15. Key themes emerging from the fisheries component of the UNEP/GEF SCSProject relate to the critical role that coastal and marine habitats of the Gulf of Thailandand play in sustaining regional fisheries, many of which are transboundary in nature,and the low level coordination between fisheries and habitat management in the region.It is now well recognised that coral reef, seagrass, mangrove, and wetland habitatscontribute significantly to the productivity of regional fisheries, and act as refuges forthe majority of fished species during critical phases of their lifecycle.

16. In this connection, the UNEP/GEF SCS Project has initiated activities, incollaboration with SEAFDEC, to enhance the use of spatial approaches to fisheriesmanagement that, focus on fishery and habitat linkages.


17. This initiative is considered important regionally because of the potential regionalfisheries benefits associated with effective fisheries and habitat management at thelocal level. It is likely that the role of such approaches to fisheries management willbecome more important in the region, especially in light of the continuing importanceof fisheries to food security, nutritional security, and maintenance of livelihoods.

18. Such approaches may also assist in curbing the effects of trends in regionalfisheries relating to over-capacity and over-exploitation, the use of destructive fishinggear and practices, habitat destruction and pollution, and illegal fishing.

Fisheries Refugia and Fisheries Management in the ASEAN Region

19. These Guidelines recognise that most common approaches to fisheriesmanagement in the ASEAN region have not effectively integrated spatial considerationsinto fisheries management frameworks. The success or failure of fisheries managementhas largely been determined by the ability of the management system to control fishingeffort so as not to exceed predetermined catch limits that are based on biological and,to a lesser extent, economic attributes of fisheries.

20. Fisheries management worldwide has largely been constrained by an inabilityto address the complexity inherent in fisheries systems. Fisheries systems involve theinterrelationships of such dynamics as environmental variability, multi-speciesinteractions and unpredictable effects of fishing on fish stocks. Such complexity notonly influences the effectiveness of policy intervention, but also the accuracy ofindicators used to assess the effectiveness of policy intervention. This is especiallythe case in Southeast Asia, given the diversity of cultural settings, unique fisheriesstructure, and the complex tropical ecosystems of the region.

21. Considering that many of the data used in the assessment of fisheries resourcesand fisheries management measures in the ASEAN region contain errors, and thatmany common assessment models grossly simplify fisheries systems, it is inevitablethat fisheries management will continue to take place in situations where there isirreducible uncertainty due to the massive and difficult information problems associatedwith describing and understanding most fisheries. This is especially true in the Gulfof Thailand and the South China Sea, where fisheries management must balance theinterests of multiple jurisdictions, coastal community dependence on fisheries forfood security, the problem of overfishing, destructive fishing practices, and theinherently complex nature of the tropical multi-species fisheries in the region.

22. The concept of fisheries refugia espoused in these Guidelines is based uponthe emerging body of evidence that the existence of natural refugia is a basic elementexplaining the resilience of commercial fish stocks to exploitation. Commercial fisheriesin the ASEAN region are subject to high levels of fishing effort, such that stocks ofmost commercially important species are considered fully fished or overexploited.Maintenance of natural refugia, or creation of refugia in cases were natural refugia nolonger exist, should be important priorities for the management of fisheries in the



ASEAN region, and may act as effective buffers against uncertainty and recruitmentfailure, of which the latter is especially important in terms of food security.

23. Natural Refugia play a central role in the sustainability of fisheries. Theexistence of large-scale natural refuges for populations of fished species contributesto the resilience of communities of commercially fished species to the effects of highfishing effort levels.

24. The concept of natural refugia is well developed in the fields of terrestrialecology and wildlife management. For instance, the use of spatial controls that,recognise the potential “source-sink” nature of hunted systems and protecting naturalrefugia, is often effective in avoiding wildlife over-exploitation when biological dataand enforcement capabilities to regulate harvests are limited, and may provide morereliable evaluations of sustainability, provide information on the dynamics of huntedsystems, and help local communities and policy-makers conserve key areas that actas game reserves.

25. In the context of fisheries, natural refugia arise from the interaction of thespatial dynamics of the population, oceanographic features, fish behaviour, and fishingeffort dynamics. Three broad types of refugia are readily discernable:

• A large population with seasonal or spawning migrations between fishinggrounds and spawning refugia,

• A large population with some local sub-populations located in fishinggrounds and others in refugia. Sub-populations located in unexploited areasprovide larval subsidies to the exploited populations, and

• In situ behavioural refugia (behaviour determines the seasonal unavailabilityof part of the stock in the fishing ground).

26. Fisheries refugia can complement conventional fisheries managementmeasures, such as effort or gear restrictions, and should be a priority consideration inthe ASEAN region in situations where fisheries are subject to intense and/orunmanageable fishing pressure. They may also be used to separate potentiallyconflicting uses of coastal and marine habitats and their limited resources. However,the effectiveness of fisheries refugia will largely depend on the selection and appropriateuse of fisheries management measures within the refugia area, and at the most generallevel, the process of establishing fisheries refugia must consider the:

• Life-cycle of the species for which refugia are being developed,• Type(s) of refugia scenarios(s) that relate to the species for which

refugia are being developed,• Location of natural refugia and appropriate sites for the establishment

of [artificial] refugia, and• National and regional level competencies in the use of fisheries

management measures and spatial approaches to resource managementand planning.


Regional Common Understanding of Fisheries Refugia

27. Fisheries Refugia in the ASEAN context are defined as:

“Spatially and geographically defined, marine or coastal areas in which specificmanagement measures are applied to sustain important species [fisheries resources]during critical stages of their lifecycle, for their sustainable use.”

28. Fisheries Refugia should:• NOT be “no take zones”,• Have the objective of sustainable use for the benefit of present and

future generations,• Provide for some areas within refugia to be permanently closed due to

their critical importance [essential contribution] to the life cycle of aspecies or group of species,

• Focus on areas of critical importance in the life cycle of fished species,including spawning, and nursery grounds, or areas of habitat requiredfor the maintenance of broodstock,

• Have different characteristics according to their purposes and thespecies or species groups for which they are established and withinwhich different management measures will apply,

• Be sub-dividable to reflect the differing importance of sub-areas to thespecies or species groups for which they are established. Managementplans for the refugia should reflect different fisheries managementmeasures for the sub-divisions.

29. Management measures that may be applied within fisheries refugia may bedrawn from the following [non-exhaustive] list:

• Exclusion of a fishing method (e.g. light luring purse seine fishing),• Restricted gears (e.g. mesh size),• Prohibited gears (e.g. push nets, demersal trawls),• Vessel size/engine capacity,• Seasonal closures during critical periods,• Seasonal restrictions (e.g. use of specific gear that may trap larvae),• Limited access and use of rights-based approaches in small-scale fisheries.

30. There is a general commonality of understanding that fisheries refugia relateto specific areas of significance to the life-cycle of particular species. Fisheries refugiamay be defined in space and time, and serve to protect spawning aggregations, nurserygrounds, and migratory routes.



Fisheries Problems, Goals and Objectives, and Challenges

31. The promotion and use of the fisheries refugia concept in the ASEAN regionis aimed at improving the use of spatial approaches to fisheries management for thesustainable use of fisheries. The specific fisheries management problems in the ASEANregion that fisheries refugia will assist in resolving include the:

• Capture of juveniles – an action focused on reducing the risk of growthover-fishing due to young recruits to the fishery being caught before theygrow to an optimal market size, or a size at first capture less than thatrequired to maximise yield (or value) per recruit,

• Capture of spawning stock in spawning areas at the time of spawning –an action focused on reducing the risk of recruitment over-fishing due toadult stock being reduced to the extent that recruits are insufficient tomaintain commercial fish stocks,

• Use of inappropriate fishing gears and practices,• Poor management of fish habitats, particularly spawning and nursery areas,

and• Conflicts among resource users – such as those between small-scale and

large-scale fisheries.

32. Whilst recognising that the overall goal associated with the use of fisheriesrefugia is to improve the use of spatial approaches to fisheries management forsustainable use of fish stocks and maintenance of habitats, objectives relating tofisheries refugia should be developed in close consultation with stakeholders. In definingsuch objectives, ASEAN member countries should consider objective-related indicatorsfor use in evaluating the performance of fisheries refugia. Specific objectives may bedrawn from the following [non-exhaustive] list and should be defined in terms oftemporal and spatial scales:

• Safeguarding of spawning and nursery areas and commercial specieswithin these areas at critical stages of their life cycles,

• Enhancement of fisheries resources and their habitats,• Prevention of habitat degradation and commercial-extinction of important

fishery species,• Improved co-ordination between fisheries and environment agencies and

organisations,• Improved use of zoning in fisheries management,• Improved incorporation of species-specific life history characteristics in

fisheries management systems,• Improved understanding amongst stakeholders, including fisher folk,

scientists, policy-makers and fisheries managers of ecosystem and fisherylinkages, and

• Promotion of the role of refugia in enhancing the resilience of fisheriessystems.


33. The use of fisheries refugia as a fisheries management tool is a relatively newconcept in the ASEAN region. ASEAN member countries should anticipate a numberof challenges in the establishment of refugia, and ensure that these challenges beassessed in the context of national scientific, legal, political and administrative contexts.The general types of anticipated challenges are:

• The problem of overcapacity,• Resistance from fisher folk and fishing communities,• Lack of scientific information and experience in the use of spatial

approaches to fisheries management,• Difficulties and costs associated with research, specifically the need for

specialised vessels/sampling equipment in collecting information regardingthe life cycle of commercially important species,

• Low-level collaboration between the responsible national level agency andlocal government,

• Encroachment during periods in which fishers are excluded,• Enforcement of management measures and regulations prohibiting the

use of illegal or destructive fishing gear, in order to prevent the unnecessarycapture of juveniles and degradation of fisheries habitats.

Priority Fisheries Refugia Types: Spawning and Juvenile Refugia

34. In relation to fisheries, the two main life history events for fished species arereproduction and recruitment. Often, these events involve movement between areas,and some species, often pelagic fishes, migrate to particular spawning areas. Manyspecies also utilise specific coastal habitats such as coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves,and wetlands as nursery and feeding areas. In terms of the effects of fishing, mostpopulations of fished species are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of high levelsof fishing effort in areas where and at times when, there are high abundances of (a)stock in spawning condition, or (b) juveniles and pre-recruits.

35. The impacts of fishing on spawning stock and juveniles/pre-recruits areintensified in instances where small-scale fishers and commercial fishers share thesame stock, leading to disputes of the relative impacts of each group. An example iswhere juveniles and pre-recruits are caught in inshore areas by small-scale fisheries,and commercial fishers catch adults of the same species offshore. In this instance,high levels of fishing effort in inshore waters may drive growth over-fishing , whilethe same circumstances in offshore areas may cause recruitment over-fishing1 of thesame stock2 (Figure 1). The use of juvenile refugia to protect fish during the juvenileand pre-recruit phases of their life-cycle can assist in the prevention of growth over-fishing. Whereas spawning refugia, may assist in the prevention of recruitment over-fishing.



Figure 1 Generalised life-history triangle for fished species, highlighting the problems of growthand recruitment over-fishing.

36. Landings from commercial fisheries in the region are dominated by smallpelagic species. The problem of recruitment over-fishing is considered to be mostrelevant to these species and the identification of spawning refugia should be prioritisedfor important pelagic species. Spawning refugia may also be effective tools for themanagement of recruitment over-fishing problems in the context of commercialinvertebrate species.

37. There is a scarcity of spawning area information relating to demersal speciesin the Gulf of Thailand. However, in terms of the decline in the availability of themajority of these species, the problem of growth over-fishing prevails and the use ofjuvenile refugia should be a priority for demersal fisheries management in the region.It is apparent there may be most benefit in establishing juvenile refugia in the contextof inshore habitat management. The design of appropriate fisheries refugia in associationwith initiatives in inshore habitat management may assist in reversing the growthover-fishing problem common to many of the region’s coastal demersal fish species.

38. It is recognised that, detailed data are not available concerning the life-cyclesand movements of many fish stocks. Nevertheless development of a system of refugiashould proceed, during the course of which the lack of data will become apparent,enabling identification of future areas for fisheries research. In this connection, theimportant role that SEAFDEC plays in regional fisheries research should be fostered,especially in relation to its capacity to conduct larval and juvenile fish samplingthroughout the region.

1 Growth over-fishing is caused by levels of fishing beyond that required to maximise yield perrecruit, and typical involves a size at first capture in the fishery that involves anunsustainably high percentage of juveniles and pre-recruits being captured.

2 Recruitment over-fishing is caused by a level of fishing in which the adult stock is reduced tothe extent that recruits produced are insufficient to maintain the population.


Establishing Fisheries Refugia

39. States should consider a two-track approach to the identification of fisheriesrefugia. The first track involves a review of known spawning areas for pelagic andinvertebrate species, with the aim of evaluating these sites as candidate spawning refugia.Information regarding the spatial dynamics of pelagic fish and invertebrate populations,oceanographic features, fish behaviour, and fishing effort dynamics should be used todetermine the optimum locations and sizes of spawning refugia. The second track is theevaluation of inshore areas as potential juvenile/pre-recruit refugia for significant demersalspecies. These juvenile refugia should be aimed at reducing the impact of growth over-fishing and may be identified using information regarding the catch and size compositionof small-scale and commercial fisheries operating in or adjacent to sites.

40. Possible directions for establishing and implementing fisheries refugia aresuggested by the legislative, policy and administrative options and approaches takenby regional countries for coastal and marine planning, including for instance thedesignation of areas closed to fishing and other zoning measures. It is likely that therewill be inter-country differences in the primary planning objectives, and the designand implementation (i.e. legislative, policy and administrative approaches) of spatialapproaches to natural resource and environmental management. These differenceswill need to be identified and reflected in any regional assessment of the design andeffectiveness of a system of fisheries refugia.

41. It is likely that the countries will reflect differences in:

• Their strategic policy and planning objectives, including the:* type of planning (e.g. protection v. multiple use);* area of planning (e.g. administrative boundaries v. geo-ecological

(coastal zone));* designated management agencies (e.g. environment v. resource

agency).

• Establishment and administration of spatial management approaches,including:

* the spatial planning process (e.g. administrative steps involved);* identification of sites;* selection and prioritisation of sites;* socio-economic assessment of the impacts of management

measures;* consultation, community participation.

42. There are a number of common information requirements that regionalcountries should consider in the development of fisheries refugia. These relate to the:

• Life-cycle of the species for which refugia are being developed,• Type(s) of refugia scenario(s) that relate to the species for which refugia

are being developed,



• Location of natural refugia and appropriate sites for the establishment of[artificial] refugia,

• National and regional level competencies in the use of fisheries managementmeasures and spatial approaches to resource management and planningthat may be applied in establishing and managing refugia,

• Goals, objectives, guiding principles, and expected outcomes for the refugiafrom both national and regional perspectives,

• Priority refugia types, definition of the actual fisheries problems that therefugia will assist in resolving, the anticipated challenges in theestablishment of fisheries refugia, and complementary activities in theregion,

• Criteria for refugia identification and selection, and• The actions required at the national level to establish fisheries refugia,

including identification of legislative, policy and administrative requirementsand support.

43. States should focus on establishing fisheries refugia with a very clear fisheriesagenda and based on the concept of sustainable use. Primary criteria for refugiaidentification should focus on habitats critical to the life-cycle of commerciallyimportant species.

Fisheries Refugia and Marine Protected Areas

44. In establishing fisheries refugia, states should recognise that, a no-take MarineProtected Area (MPA) can potentially assist in insuring against over-exploitation and mayenhance yields in adjacent fisheries. However, the ecological criteria commonly used forMPA site selection in the region that, include biodiversity, naturalness, uniqueness, andvulnerability criteria, may result in the establishment of MPAs that are ineffective in (a)safeguarding fished species at critical phases of their life-cycle, and (b) may not minimisethe impacts of high fishing effort levels at times and places when fish populations areparticularly vulnerable to the effects of fishing, such as when they are spawning orutilising inshore areas for feeding and/or for protection from predators.

45. States should recognise the role MPAs play in marine conservation. While theuse of fisheries refugia may result in some of the conservation benefits associated withMPAs, they should not be promoted as substitutes for MPAs. However, from the fisheriesperspective, the difference between no-take MPAs and sustainable use fisheries refugiashould be clearly communicated to government officials and coastal communities inestablishing fisheries refugia, as the fishery and critical habitat linkages intrinsic to thefisheries refugia concept may be more easily accepted by stakeholders than MPAs.

Complementary Initiatives in Regional Fisheries Management

46. Against the general background of uncertainty and complexity associatedwith the development of fisheries refugia there is a need to develop robust and workablesolutions to involving stakeholders in the establishment and management of refugia.


An emerging appreciation of the diverse traditions and cultures in the region, and theimportant role of small-scale, coastal and subsistence fisheries has recently providedimpetus for the development of new approaches to stakeholder participation inSoutheast Asian fisheries management.

47. A key perspective in the region is that over-exploitation problems may be asign of community failure, in that community values, norms, and knowledge arecritically important in guiding sustainable fisheries practices and that the erosion ofsuch community arrangements for the management of fisheries may open the door to“over-fishing”. In this connection, significant efforts are being made in the region todecentralise the responsibility of fisheries management with an aim of establishingco-management approaches to fisheries. States should promote the co-managementof fisheries refugia.

48. The notion of rights-based approaches to the management of the region’ssmall-scale coastal fisheries is also gaining ascendancy. Examples of rights basedfisheries management systems are currently being promoted by the Southeast AsianFisheries Development Center and governments in the region, with a notable casestudy being the communalisation of fishing rights as developed in the inshore fisheriesof Japan, where the use of community based territorial use rights, reinforced by localmodes of social regulation, have been successful in preventing over exploitation. Theuse of use rights and collective choice rights should be promoted in the context offisheries refugia management.

49. It is also recognised that regional fisheries management must incorporatestrategies that aim to foster the dependence of fisheries on coastal and marine habitats.This will require developing mechanisms aimed at minimising fishery impacts on thehabitats upon which fisheries depend, and consideration of the regional fishery benefitsof effective coastal habitat management. Efforts should be taken to minimise fisheriesimpacts on fishery refugia habitats.

50. The improved use of statistics and indicators in identifying and managingfisheries refugia should be encouraged. In addition to their use in monitoring andtuning management action, statistics and indicators can be useful in communicatingwith cross-sectoral agencies and have significant potential for use in communityeducation and awareness programs.

51. Practical uses of indicator systems for fisheries refugia include identifyingareas with high abundances of juveniles or spawning stock, and use by fishingcommunities to assess the performance of policy or regulations. However, a keyconstraint in the use of indicators in fisheries is the information required to drivethem. Often this information is unavailable, pointing to the need for a limited numberof fishery-specific indicators with some integrated properties (i.e. indicators reflectingthe status of more than one component of the fishery).



Figure 2 Framework for the development of a regional system of fisheries refugia forsustainable capture fisheries.

Secretariat

P.O. Box 1046Kasetsart Post Office

Bangkok 10903Thailand

Tel:(66-2)940-6326Fax: (66-2)940-6336

E-mail:[email protected]://www.seafdec.org

Training Department (TD)

Marine Fisheries Research Department (MFRD)2 Perahu Road

off Lim Chu Kang RoadSingapore 718915

Tel: (65)6790-7973Fax: (65)6861-3196

E-mail:[email protected]://www.fishsafetyinfo.com/

Aquaculture Department (AQD)Main Office: Tigbauan, 5021 Iloilo, Philippines

Tel (63-33) 511-9171, 336-2965Fax (63-33) 335-1008, 511-8709, 511-9070

Manila Office: 17 Times Street, West Triangle1104 Quezon City, Philippines

Tel (63-2) 372-3980 to 82; Fax (63-2) 372-3983

E-mail: [email protected]://www.seafdec.org.ph

Taman Perikanan Chendering,21080 Kuala Terengganu,

MalaysiaTel: (609)616-3150Fax:(609)617-5136

E-mail: [email protected]://www.mfrdmd.org.my/

Marine Fishsery Resources Developmentand Management Department (MFRDMD)

SEAFDEC Addresses

P.O.Box 97Phrasamutchedi

Samut Prakan 10290Thailand

Tel:(66-2)425-6100Fax:(66-2)425-6110 to 11

E-mail:[email protected]://td.seafdec.org/

the following pages have been extracted from the … refugia... · since adoption of the ccrf, the...

Documents